Abrams Directing Star Wars
- Thread starter Kamdan
- Start date
I think what muddled that joke was the fact that there are more than a few fans out there completely insistent about the Thrawn trilogy being adapted. (I'm not one of those, though.)
Neither am I. I don't mind elements and species from the Thrawn trilogy being used in new film scripts or even Thrawn himself as a supporting character, but don't follow the storyline of the books. Create new situations involving Thrawn if you're going to use him.
Well, that would contradict the EU, which I think should be respected even if most fans are illiterate and too lazy to follow it. Contradicting the Thrawn trilogy would be a pretty dumb way of trying to win fans over. It's as beloved as the original trilogy, even by those that don't like Star Wars books.
Not even close.
Not by the public obviously, but they hate books in general. With fans the Thrawn trilogy are universally loved. At school like 5 other people in my class had read 'em. More than had read Lord of the Rings.
Nerys Myk said:
Uh, the same Disney which made The Avengers conclude with just about the most obscure Marvel villain possible being revealed? Thrawn is FAR more well known.
The old days of franchise movies being universally unfaithful and oblivious to fan demands are dying. Keeping the fans on your side is only ever good in the long run. See Dragon Ball: Evolution or Avatar: The Last Airbender for a clue as to how dumb ignoring the fans is.
It's beloved among the books. Saying it's as beloved as the big screen Original Trilogy is an exaggeration in the extreme. Apples and oranges.
If you want to talk novelized SW literature that's had an impact on the overall Lucas universe over the last twenty years then you might have a point. But saying the Thrawn Trilogy books are as cherished as The Empire Strikes Back?
[Will Smith] HELL, naw. [/Will Smith]
If you want to talk novelized SW literature that's had an impact on the overall Lucas universe over the last twenty years then you might have a point. But saying the Thrawn Trilogy books are as cherished as The Empire Strikes Back?
[Will Smith] HELL, naw. [/Will Smith]
Thanos is obscure? Not if you read comics.
Thrawn is only well known in fandom circles, just like Thanos. No one outside of those circles know or care who Thrawn is. To them the only Star Wars villain is Dark Vader.
The trends seems to be going away from fan service. See just about any adaptation of an existing property in the last 10 years.
Yeah, that's bullshit from beginning to end - the public does not "hate books," though there's clearly some kind of ceiling on how many people in the world are at all interested in reading media tie-in novels (an appetite for which does not mark one out as a member of any kind of intellectual elite, BTW)...and since Star Wars fans number in many millions and most of them have never read the "Thrawn trilogy" it's impossible for them to love it "universally."
IOW, Thanos is pretty damned obscure.
Hey, everybody! This is still a STAR TREK forum. Take your Thrawns and stuff elsewhere.
I'm definitely more of a Trekkie but I'm much more familiar with the Star Wars EU than I am with Trek literature. My school had LOTS of Star Wars books in the library but no Star Trek. Hell, I've probably read less than 10 Trek books in my life. Feeble compared to the unthinkable amount of Doctor Who and Star Wars literature I've consumed.
Ordered a bunch of DS9 Relaunch novels though, can't wait to dive in.
Can you go through one post without being so fucking rude? We were all having a civil, friendly chat when as per usual you come in with some obnoxious, needless hate. Quit it. Frankly, you come across as a bully.
Well, I'm gonna use my Batman analogy then.
Thrawn is as popular with Star Wars fans as Ra's al Ghul was with Batman fans before Batman Begins. The general public had no fucking clue who he was and only knew Joker, Riddler, Catwoman, Penguin etc but that didn't stop Nolan making a movie with a villain only geeks know.
Of course I can.
One can respect your right to hold and express the opinion "the public hates books," but not the content of the opinion itself; it's not worthy. Whether one calls it nonsense, unobservant, or "bullshit," it all comes to the same thing.
Last edited:
I honestly worry you have no respect for any opinion other than JJ Abrams being the most handsome, sexiest, talented man that ever lived. Any other belief seems to be worthy of cruelty and rudeness from you.
You're the one who called people illiterate and lazy for not reading Star Wars book. Not really seeing any room for you to criticize what Dennis said. How was he rude again? For pointing out you might not know what you're talking about?Hey, everybody! This is still a STAR TREK forum. Take your Thrawns and stuff elsewhere.
I'm definitely more of a Trekkie but I'm much more familiar with the Star Wars EU than I am with Trek literature. My school had LOTS of Star Wars books in the library but no Star Trek. Hell, I've probably read less than 10 Trek books in my life. Feeble compared to the unthinkable amount of Doctor Who and Star Wars literature I've consumed.
Ordered a bunch of DS9 Relaunch novels though, can't wait to dive in.
Can you go through one post without being so fucking rude? We were all having a civil, friendly chat when as per usual you come in with some obnoxious, needless hate. Quit it. Frankly, you come across as a bully.
Using Thrawn (or a character with that name) is different than adapting the books. Batman Begins was not an adaptation of the O'Neil/Adams Batman stories.
He's rude in every single post he ever makes. He logs on to the forum with the express purpose of treating other human beings like shit. He barely even discusses Star Trek. Just how awful us fans all are. It's vile and I have no idea how he gets away with it.
My two pence.
Well, if the books were adapted then Thrawn wouldn't be the main sell it would be Luke, Han, Leia etc all returning. Obviously they'd be older than in the book but I'd accept artistic licence if we got to see Mark Hamill back on-screen as Luke.
One problem with adapting the Thrawn Trilogy to the big screen even if the fans, Disney and Lucas wanted to do so (which they clearly don't) we have the issue of the Zahn novels taking place only a relatively short time after the events of Return of the Jedi and the deaths of the Emperor and Darth Vader. The new Trilogy is most likely going to be set some 30 years or thereabouts after Jedi to account for the ages of actors like Hamill, Fisher and Ford if they indeed appear in the new movies.
The Thrawn story just doesn't work if it's set several decades later than in the books. That said, it's not happening anyways. I'd be the first SW geek to cheer if Thrawn showed up as a background character or supporting villain in one of the three new films but I'm not expecting it and I don't want any of the post-Jedi novels adapted for the big screen.
The Thrawn story just doesn't work if it's set several decades later than in the books. That said, it's not happening anyways. I'd be the first SW geek to cheer if Thrawn showed up as a background character or supporting villain in one of the three new films but I'm not expecting it and I don't want any of the post-Jedi novels adapted for the big screen.
I know Thanos but ain't read the Thrawn books, but being a Marvel fanboy from childhood may have something to do with that.
Nerys Myk said:
I've rarely seen such a baffling statement. Comic book movies and cult oriented adaptations have gotten WAY more accurate than they used to. Over 10 years ago, they were planning to make an Iron Man movie where the main villain was his father who was also War Machine. The fact that we got an Iron Man film that, while updated, is fairly accurate and ended with Nick Fury appearing and saying the Avengers is something that only could have come about in the Internet age where people can Google Nick Fury and the Avengers and go, "Ahhh." We've moved on insanely far from when Judge Dredd would go without his helmet half the movie and kiss a girl or where John Constantine is a dark haired Keanu Reeves. We're at a point where most filmmakers of geek properties want to satisfy the general public AND the Comic-Con audience instead of completely abandoning the latter for the former but by doing so, making something that has no real spark to attract the general public.
Oh, come on. With the rare exception of a Da Vinci Code or Twilight or 50 Shades of Grey now and then, the greater public stays away from books. I don't even see how this is being disputed.
Having read far too many of your posts, you've no room to complain. You make broad generalizations about people who disagree with you and try to promote your opinion as fact. When confronted you call them rude.
Again, explain what was rude about what Dennis said in his post. Is he wrong?
Similar threads
